Jump to content

Max Power

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    860

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Max Power

  1. CyberNations and the magic beanstalk

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    2)  This idea is a bit more radical, but perhaps it could be something that people would find useful to make wars more painful and give a benefit for lower tiers:

     

    Make it so PM is no longer an option for a player past a certain level of NS outright.  Say once you pass 20k NS or somesuch you no longer can go into peacemode during war.  No restrictions on war chests or anything else, but it would prevent a lot of wars dragging out as people cycle in and out of PM and wait for folks to elect to fight.  Wars would go a lot quicker as voices call for peace once they lose all their nukes, get zied, etc.

     

    Smaller nations can prepare for 'the jump' to the serious wars.  Peace mode is a tactic sure, but it would be something where wars are faster and more furious because EVERYONE is a target, not just the non-peaced out ready ranks.

     

    This would, again, let smaller nations know they can be 'safe' and grow to a certain degree, while the 'gap' doesn't grow so crazy large that they can never catch up.  It would literally *encourage* alliances to grow their new nations fast, because they will need numbers to fight.  It will make sure alliances prepare their newer nations, because they will be thrown into the meatgrinder with everyone else.

     

    In short, it will encourage people to prepare newer nations for war, while making wars quicker as the outcry grows much more to end things when WCs run low.  Shorter, more painful wars.

    -----------------

     

    Just some off-hand ideas.  Feel free to pick away at them.

    Here's a radical idea in that vein: make PM no longer available to nations that have purchased the Manhattan Project. You want to be nuclear-armed? Fine, but don't dare call yourself a peaceful nation. It could even lead to a few nations intentionally staying non-nuclear so they could be stagger dummies.

     

     

    Some excellent suggestions Crownguard, particularly your suggestion of buying tech from a "guaranteed market" at the rate you suggest, I really love that idea. With regards to your PM suggestion I would rather see a max limit of x number of days then being forced out of PM. I'm a relatively large nation and would like the ability to hit PM to reload if the opportunity arose, just not indefinitely.  Long term PM is what drags out wars imo and eliminating that would go long way to shorten them.   

    Long-term PM has forced entire wars into stalemate. I do like the idea of being able to hold nations in reserve for a second blitz, so maybe some kind of reserve function is a decent compromise? Like a max one week in PM thing and then no more PM for the next month.

  11. "micro" alliances and actual, established alliances

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    As someone in a micro that's been fairly successful recruiting randoms, there's plenty to offer. Like big alliances, you can get the person a TC and tech deals, which don't exactly require 300 slots each. Unlike big alliances, the recruit actually gets to deal with high government on a regular basis, whenever s/he wants. It's like working for a small company versus working for a large company. Only in the small company does the entry-level guy actually get to chat to the CEO. Unlike in real life, though, the aid cap means the big alliance can't pay the recruit more to join it.

     

    Coalition warfare is something caused by the sheer number of alliances combined with the ridiculous number of treaties they all hold with each other. I'm not sure how micros make that any better.

    I'm not really against small alliances, but I would contend that there's a critical mass needed for an alliance to become sustainable. It's exhausting to run an alliance that grinds to a complete halt if one person logs out, and that can/has happened to alliances of any size.

    It's virtually impossible to have more than about 4-5 treaties when you don't have the alliance size to have a dedicated FA team. When you have one person who's, say, MoFA plus some other government position, you're inherently pickier with things like how often you're on IRC or how many embassies you have. The bigger alliances end up with way too many treaties (Polar having 24 of them in 2010 being the most egregious example that comes to mind offhand) because they have the resources to do things like delegate different alliances to different FA representatives. Unsurprisingly, that can also lead to fractious FA because an alliance that treaties one of these behemoths might know a few diplomats really well and the other FA people not at all.

     

    An alliance can be an established alliance and be a micro at the same time. OP is fundamentally flawed. :)

    Though, it all depends on your definitions of it. Point is, I think the ability to defend oneself can make you an established alliance while still being a micro.

    I think by "actual established alliances" hakai was poking fun at the words people use to discourage micros, not creating an established/micro dichotomy.

     

    I've encountered good and bad players in alliances of all sizes and statures; the same goes for leadership for that matter. Furthermore, smaller alliances (which is all 'micro' should mean imho) give opportunities to nations to prove themselves and form tighter-knit communities. You can't build bonds amongst a group of say 50+ people that can ever match the sense of camaraderie you can have in a micro.

    When some strive to shrug-off the 'micro' tag, that's often when the wheels fall off the wagon; egos come to the forefront, and the game becomes less and less about having fun and more about spreadsheets, treaty webs and other tedious nonsense. And the internal power struggles. Let's not forget about those.

    The first paragraph I've quoted here is spot on. The idea that people in large alliances have necessarily never interacted with some people in their own alliance is baffling to me.

     

    Micros have to deal with spreadsheets and treaty webs too. The spreadsheets only have 1-2 people making them, although they are smaller so they're easier that way. The treaty web concerns are wonkier because you're not dealing with a bunch of people who at least kind of get the idea their big alliance will be dragged into a conflict, you're having to sell a bunch of people who are playing the game specifically to be away from the treaty web that your ally, who they like, is justified in immolating itself thanks to the treaty web but that such a situation merits your micro's intervention. Internal power struggles are relatively easy to deal with in CN because of how easy it is to splinter. You don't even have to do anything about the amount of land anyone controls.

  14. After a thorough investigation...

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    Phewf! Can never play it too safe with those tech deals.

     

    There are none left, but if you'd like I can offer you a croissant and some coffee.  The coffee comes without cream, milk or sugar and the croissants are loaded with butter and chocolate :P

    That is how I prefer both my coffee and my croissants.

  16. Where do we go from here?

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    Schatt wins the thread. The new cool thing to do is suck up to DBDC and talk about how respectful and nice they are. Sure, I respect that they've built an ultra-tier alliance from nothing, and they are excellent at war. But to say someone who raids alliances and 3v1's nations to take free stuff, is respectful? That's too much. I like to quote Cuba's first line of his nation bio ""Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." --- Abraham Lincoln". Funny, with your character you've raided and stole...what a hero! Until the game mechanics change, the upper tier is entirely pointless to sit in. It's actually better to stunt your own growth, and just build a massive warchest. Otherwise you'll be sitting at 150k NS and getting hit by a 650k nation and two 400k nations. Abusing lax game mechanics is also pretty shady. 

    Maybe some of us actually like DBDC and would still like them even if it weren't so cool. Just saying.

  19. Just Coffee... and Doom. Lots and lots of both.

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Max Power

    Oh3bODr.png

     

    The Javahouse League and Doom Squad have a lot in common. We both value quality over quantity, friendship over politics, and optional over mandatory. Put shortly, we do what we want. We play the game the game we want to play it. What we want right now is this:

     

    [spoiler]

    Escape from the Coffee Shop of Horrors
     
    I. Non-Aggression
     
    The Javahouse League and Doom Squad (“The Parties”) will not attack or spy on each other under any circumstance.
     
    II. Intelligence
     
    The Parties will share intelligence relevant to each other’s security with each other as it becomes available.
     
    III. Optional Defence
     
    Should either of the Parties be subject to attack or a spy operation from an outside nation or group of nations, that party is permitted to request assistance of a financial, diplomatic and/or military nature. The other party is strongly encouraged to provide the requested assistance, with an obligation to provide reasons, and possibly alternative assistance, should the requested assistance not be able to be provided.
     
    IV. Optional Aggression
     
    Should either of the Parties endeavour to engage in an alliance-wide attack or spy operation upon an outside nation or group of nations, the other party will be notified duly and may be requested to join in said endeavour in a financial, diplomatic and/or military nature.
     
    V. Spirit of Alliance
     
    [i]a. Amity and Commerce[/i]
     
    The Parties agree to treat each other civilly and to execute sections I-IV of this treaty in the spirit of teamwork.
     
    The Parties also agree to include each other among any Most Favoured Alliances lists for the purposes of economic trade (“Foreign Aid”).
     
    b. External Cooperation
     
    Should an ally of either of the Parties be subject to an attack of spy operation, the Parties shall meet at their earliest convenience to discuss options for assisting said ally.
     
    VI. Cancellation
     
    Should either of the Parties wish to cancel this treaty, it may do so unilaterally with 96-hour notice. Should the Parties wish to cancel this treaty bilaterally, they may do so at any time.
     
    Signed,
     
    For The Javahouse League
     
    White Chocolate, Queen
    Max Power, Warlord
    Lonewolfe2015, Architect
    John Churchill, Membership Manager
    Bob Slydell, Temp-to-hire
     
    For Doom Squad
     
    Lord Hershey, Alpha
    Renegade4box, Beta
    Ghost, Sentinel
    [/spoiler]

     

    Very relevant: inb4 tJL-Kashmir-DS all tied and containing the words "Doom", "House" and "SirWilliam".

     

    Somewhat relevant: It appears tJL lost its entire March NS gain today. Sad news, I know...

     

    Not really relevant but I'm not giving it its own thread: #javahouse is now our public IRC channel. Don't bother with that dusty old #tJL. It's cooked.

  24. FAN Announcement

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [OOC]Am I the only one who thinks FAN is doing an absolutely brilliant job RPing McCarthyism? It's a really cool angle for a gun-themed alliance to take.[/OOC]

     

    If what you consider "wars" and "fighting" is smacking around an alliance 1/10th your size immediately after the last global, then it's no wonder you're all so bored.

    UCR wasn't in the last global war, only in Kas.

     

    tl;dr: "We're as dumb as we look"

     

     

    It also explains their woefully low casualty numbers.

    Oh look, a tech seller is acting tough. Cute.

     

    The !@#$ really hit the fan in this thread. 

    Just the best pun that could have possibly been made.

     

    I don't know, I find something kind of refreshing about admitting they have a stupid reason or no reason for attacking as opposed to pretending to have a better reason. It beats using a three alliance oA chain.

    Good point.

×
×
  • Create New...